Comments:

1. Sue W on September 8th, 2012 at 23:42:

   *gasp* Kebabs are made of babies?!?

Comments:

1. Roland Hesz on September 8th, 2012 at 16:37:

   You have one? Nope. So they are not mistaken. Refusing to buy one is not a “system for disabling ads”.

2. Spaceman Spiff on September 8th, 2012 at 18:22:

   How many seconds after the new Fires are released will some hacker unlock them so you can change the lock screen? I think they can be counted in the 10′s…

3. Roland Hesz on September 8th, 2012 at 22:46:

   Actually, if it will be based on the Amazon recommendation system, then there is a chance that it actually will be useful.
   But god forbid they make money. Showing ads when you are not reading. Gasp.

4. John Sinteur on September 9th, 2012 at 14:30:

   Apparently I’m not the only one who said “I don’t want one if that’s the case”. The backpedaling has started

5. Roland Hesz on September 10th, 2012 at 8:56:

   Yes, makes sense that people don’t want it.
   Mind you, with a few exceptions, a lot of these same people say “Gosh, I didn’t even know that! Why nobody told me??” when they miss their favourite book on the £1.99 sale, and such annoying things.

6. Roland Hesz on September 10th, 2012 at 8:58:

   It’s the same as with Skype: during a voice call, we show ads on that black spot that you don’t even look at Instant outrage. I don’t look at it but don’t you dare put anything there because, well, I won’t see it anyway, but don’t!

   Sometimes I wonder if people are a bit overdoing some things without stopping to think for 5 seconds.

7. Desiato on September 10th, 2012 at 17:33:

   @Roland: you can throw all the rational arguments at it you want, but fact is I don’t want any ads on the lockscreen on my device.

   Somehow it doesn’t even feel equivalent to be extorted for money after you buy the device to get rid of the ads, rather than be offered two different prices up front at device purchase time.

   In general, though, nice to at least have choices.

8. Desiato on September 10th, 2012 at 17:49:

   P.S., interesting bit from interview with Bezos:

   [Quote:]

   How does special offers, or the advertising, play a role in the price point?

   We had it on our E-Ink devices, but haven’t had it on the Kindle Fire. For those, it’s very good, no one really buys the non-special-offers version. Everyone buys the special-offers version. There aren’t two versions of this (pointing to the new 7-inch Kindle Fire HD). That was a decision we made because no one is willing to buy the non-special-offers version.

   So Bezos’ claim is that Amazon decided to simplify the product lineup because too few people were buying the non-ad supported regular Kindles.

9. Roland Hesz on September 10th, 2012 at 19:38:

   @Desiato It’s not an argument, it’s just an opinion. I understand that you don’t want such a device.
   However “I don’t want” and “I decry it as an evil, despicable act” are two different things.

   I see the point where people don’t want to buy it. I don’t see the point where people start to bash it as evil and such.

   I don’t like brusselsprouts, but I don’t call it the vegetable of the Devil

10. John Sinteur on September 10th, 2012 at 19:41:

    no one really buys the non-special-offers version

    Is that a bit like that good old Hitch Hikers’ quote?

    “No one is really poor. At least no one worth speaking of….”

Comments:

1. Mudak on September 8th, 2012 at 17:08:

   I’m not trying to defend Romney here, but this doesn’t sound legal or ethical. At the very least, revealing that information could be thought of as a privacy breach.

2. Sue W on September 8th, 2012 at 23:40:

   No-one asked Mr. Romney to run. For someone seeking public office, serious accusations of (at least) unethical* behaviour mean there is a case to be answered and a legitimate public concern. In this case Mr. Romney can prove a negative quite simply.

   * Screwing the IRS and other taxpayers. I consider this far more serious than, say, cheating on one’s spouse.

3. Roland Hesz on September 10th, 2012 at 10:13:

   Remember when Geithner had similar problems?
   There was loud howling from Romney’s side.

4. Desiato on September 10th, 2012 at 17:29:

   If Romney is hiding something in the tax returns, the DNC will probably pay more than $1mln to see them released.